Slashdot Mirror


User: jheen

jheen's activity in the archive.

Stories
0
Comments
3
First seen
Last seen
Profile
(view on slashdot.org)

Comments · 3

  1. ISPs to pay for this? on UK Building Eavesdropping Infrastructure · · Score: 1
    Something that caught my eye in the article was that they are thinking of making the ISPs pay for at least part of this new technology. So, here's a question for everyone, is that standard and if not, what are the implications of the gov't doing this?

    I would think since it's a monitoring devises for the gov't, they would be required to pay for it all. And if the ISPs have to pay for some of it, would they be able to start monitoring the users of the ISPs since it's their money that is helping pay for it? While I would assume no, the fact that they may be helping to pay for it would possibly make them part owners. I would like to know what that could mean legally for everyone, because while I'm not fond of a goverment reading my emails, some random ISP owner reading my email makes me just plain upset.

  2. Re:Just Passing Through on UK Building Eavesdropping Infrastructure · · Score: 1
    Well, the system they are setting up will allow them to get any email that is in some way in the UK, either passing through, orginating from, or going to. However, from what I understood in the article, there are supposed to be some safeguards from them just reading every email they want to. They still need to get a warrant to intercept the email. So, unless the UK was interested in either of the two people sending and receiving email, I don't think there would be any problem. And even if they are interested, I'm not sure if they can legally get a warrent issued for a non-UK citizen. Of course, if they decide to forgo the warrent, then we start having major problems.

  3. Re:Might be too late... on Slashback: Books, Spooks, Violence, Recovery · · Score: 1
    *shudder* Not even to keep the case in the courts, will I vote for Al Gore. He's a total moron who thinks he's helping people but is actually doing the very opposite. He wants to protect us from ourselves and that in my book is the making of a bad president. Not that George W. Bush may be much better, but at least he hasn't come out and said it.